Hillside_Moose said:
post #210374
post #648054
post #646753
Questionable for both.
Posted under General
Hillside_Moose said:
post #210374
post #648054
post #646753
Questionable for both.
And post #646753? I think Safe, but I'd like some feedback.
Shinjidude said:
As for hime_cut, the sidelocks are right, but the bangs are too uneven for me to consider it as such.
If you look at the arguably well chosen last three wiki examples you'll see that the bangs evenness don't really seem to matter (and I used to think blunt bangs were needed, for the record), so I was more asking about the sidelocks actually.
葉月 said:
Howso? Just because penises are by their very nature more protruding?
Precisely. Isn't that the "tag what you see" principle?
And to be clear I'm not eager to see q expanding even more by welcoming the above posts so they're mixed with stuff like post #480458 in the same rating pool. That's just stretching too far and defeats the purpose of having different categories if everything has to fall in the middle. Nothing new, I know.
I'll gladly ignore this for the sake of consistency though, but I don't think we're going that way with these examples:
葉月 said:
There's absolutely no difference between the girl's and the boy's nudity in this picture, so if you accept one as being questionable, so is the other.
That's a dangerous statement to me.
Say we have the girl and the boy lying with their legs spread so that the girl's genitals are fully visible for a rating:e (they're not fucking, they're sleeping, and it doesn't sound any more retarded than running naked with a scarf). Yet the boy isn't really showing more than he did on post #612474, which would make the girl q.
At this point I should have shown it can't work since it's a common fact that you won't find a spread pussy not rated e, but you got me thinking that this might actually also be your intent when the reason is good enough to.
> Bah, from a quick trip to penis rating:q I now have your confirmation. Might as well screw the entire first point of explicit in howto:rate now that erect penises don't qualify anymore either.
You don't even see genitals that well in half of the actual sex posts.
I don't get why you didn't start tagging spread pussies as q as well then since it's basically the same thing but, well, I'd like to know what your logic is so that all of this makes sense.
Thoughts on post #258467?
Seems to be non-sexual nudity, so I'd go with Safe - but I'd like some confirmation on that.
Still Questionable. The nudity isn't the same as post #469256.
I'd be hesitant in tagging any nudity as Safe.
Bapabooiee said:
Thoughts on post #258467?Seems to be non-sexual nudity, so I'd go with Safe - but I'd like some confirmation on that.
The subtext is very clearly sexual, or at least about nudity as an indecent/unexpected state. It's not at all like post #469256, where it's absolutely natural and de-emphasised.
post #95413 - Currently rated e, but you can't actually see vagina and it's not obvious whether she's just covering herself or actually masturbating.
post #226792 - Currently rated q, but the cameltoe and secretions are pretty blatant.
post #226785 - Currently rated q, but the panties are so transparent it's almost like they're not even there.
Updated
All of these are q. Re-reading howto:rating is recommended. Also calling post #226792's secretions "blatant" is, well, questionable.
Edit: post #656337 too.
post #656350: Simple nudity is Q according to howto:rate.
post #656337: Explicit.
howto:rate:
"Explicit
(...)
All clearly visible bodily fluids except blood and saliva (cum, pussy juice, pee)."
I'd say a girl - shirt open with no bra - holding a condom full of semen, and dripping with other fluids on the outside, fulfills that criterion quite nicely.
sgcdonmai said:
post #656350: Simple nudity is Q according to howto:rate.
The hesitation was probably over the somewhat visible genitalia.
Yeah, I think I was tired when I submitted those links. But hey, it never hurts to be sure.
jxh2154 said:
The hesitation was probably over the somewhat visible genitalia.
Pretty much. I'm fully aware of the guidelines, but I'm still a bit blurry on whether how much genitalia exposure is considered "ostentatiously explicit."
And to make use of this thread: post #654347 and post #650883.
I would label them Q, but the pose of the former and the prominent genitalia of the latter give me doubts.
Hillside_Moose said: And to make use of this thread: post #654347 and post #650883.
I'd just keep them explicit. The genitalia rule is a pretty easy one to stick with, I think, and the exceptions are going to be very very rare.
I think post #654347 is meant to draw significantly more attention to the buttocks than to the genitalia, though I don't feel strongly enough about it to lower it to Q.
post #650883 should probably stay E, yeah.
According to the text, it's "condensed milk," so should the cum tags be removed and rerated Questionable for being sexually suggestive instead?
No, because as much as I hate the "every foreign substance is surely ejaculate" meme, this thing is very, very hard to interpret in any other way. Yes, the text says so, but it doesn't really matter for our tag what you see policy. Also, when was the last time you've seen condensed milk that was stringy?
Hence my use of quotations, I suppose. I did change it to Q, but I immediately changed it back when I looked at the picture again and it didn't sit right.
葉月 said:
Also, when was the last time you've seen condensed milk that was stringy?
Hard to say. Last time I had condensed milk was about a decade ago.
Seems extremely tame for a Q rating.